LulzSec brought down by own leader • Hacker News Board

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#131

Post by piggity » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 6:42 AM UTC

tlb wrote: post #107

kyledrake wrote: post #15

This article claims billions of dollars in damage. If this is what the FBI is saying, they are wrong. Lulzsec damages don't even approach a million dollars, most likely. Billions of dollars is how much money it costs to do things like provide universal health care for a small state. The FBI should investigate real cases and not treat a bunch of merry pranksters like they're a bunch of super terrorists.

It may include damage to reputation -- Sony could easily claim hundreds of millions there.

I didn't realise they had any reputation left to be damaged.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#132

Post by Indyan » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 7:42 AM UTC

phpnode wrote: post #21

upgrayedd wrote: post #9

So these dox were accurate after all? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2697398

accurate for sabu but not the rest it seems

Sabu was doxed repeatedly, and his family was even the subject of a NYTimes story. http://th3j35t3r.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/if-i-am-wrong-ill-... http://ceaxx.wordpress.com/uncovered/ http://techie-buzz.com/tech-news/fbi-lulzsec-anonymous-sabu....

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#133

Post by nikcub » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 12:01 PM UTC

nmridul wrote: post #124

eli wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give credit where its due: Fox News broke this story. The Guardian report appears to be based solely on the earlier Fox story and public documents.

It has nothing to do with giving credits. I (and I'm sure many others would also) like to read less tabloid-y and factual reporting anytime and so would prefer to read the story on Guardian than on Fox.

the Guardian is a re-blog of an original fox story. you are showing a bias

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#134

Post by watty » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 12:41 PM UTC

dasil003 wrote: post #39

[deleted] wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

It's never ethical. Even if the ends morally justify the means it's still entrapment.

Never ethical to assist law enforcement? Never??

Come on man.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#135

Post by kiloaper » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 3:53 PM UTC

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #40

mellifluousmind wrote: post #23

Well, you can pretty much imagine how it went down. FBI caught up to him with threats like "eh..you are unemployed, and you still have two kids. You want to see them in foster care system?" ... well, no surprise there. too many buttons that FBI can push on this guy

Vapid speculation based on TV plots doesn't really help the level of discourse at HN. Given the list of hacks and the outrageous hacking laws in the US, the default penalty could easily be life in prison. I wouldn't think the Feds would need to push much harder than that.

It's not exactly vapid speculation. It's what's been reported by Fox news. I'm not sure how trustworthy their source is but here is the quote:

>“It was because of his kids,” one of the two agents recalled. “He’d do anything for his kids. He didn’t want to go away to prison and leave them. That’s how we got him.”

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/03/06/exclusive-unmaskin...

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#136

Post by kiloaper » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 3:56 PM UTC

mellifluousmind wrote: post #129

SoftwareMaven wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vapid speculation based on TV plots doesn't really help the level of discourse at HN. Given the list of hacks and the outrageous hacking laws in the US, the default penalty could easily be life in prison. I wouldn't think the Feds would need to push much harder than that.

Vapid or not, everyone is entitled to their opinions. If you can't accept that, you are not welcome on HN discussion either. End of story. Simply stated, if HN is heading towards Reddit-like behavior where comments must gear towards "singular" minded thinking, that's the also the day I stop visiting this site.

I think it's a bit naive to think that's what's been dubbed 'hivemind' behavior is absent on HN. I think it appears on every site, differing just by degrees. The threads on the recent GitHub hack were quite telling.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#137

Post by zby » Wed, Mar 07, 2012, 7:18 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #43

I reckon a huge proportion of blackhats in the scene are working for the feds. Some kid with no record gets thrown in a van by men with guns, and the full force of police psychological manipulation is brought to bear on them. They get told they're irrevocably destined for a lifetime of being brutally raped in the showers. Is it any surprise that these young men with no experience of foul-play or maliciousness outside…

That reminds me of Albert Gonzales and The Great Cyberheist (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/magazine/14Hacker-t.html?p...) - awesome story. Gonzales was broken by FBI and became their agent - but then he got somehow bored by the cooperation and returned back to his underground activities while still working for FBI.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#138

Post by rajpaul » Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 5:43 PM UTC

sliverstorm wrote: post #116

rajpaul wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think that a lot of black hats are working for the feds. But I think it has more to do with their lack of integrity and morals rather than threats and intimidation. Legal advice is a big part of black hat literature, so I don't think any of them can claim ignorance.

Not to mention, they wouldn't typically have met their co-conspirators face-to-face. It is much easier to turn on an anonymous handle on the computer screen than a human face.

That's true. Also, unlike other criminal organizations, 'ratting out' your hacktivist co-conspirators isn't harmful to your health.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#139

Post by corford » Fri, Mar 09, 2012, 1:00 AM UTC

eli wrote: post #126

nmridul wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has nothing to do with giving credits. I (and I'm sure many others would also) like to read less tabloid-y and factual reporting anytime and so would prefer to read the story on Guardian than on Fox.

But the quotes are literally lifted from the Fox piece. The Guardian does not add much new reporting, it just lays out the existing facts in a way you find more agreeable.

Which is what I thought I made clear when I linked to it i.e. same report, less hyperbole. Perhaps you would have preferred it if I had used the word "version" rather than "report"?